 |
| RTomens, 2021 |
Egotist, n. A person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me.
- Ambrose Bierce, The Unabridged Devil's Dictionary
You've got to chuckle at that, haven't you? In the first edition of my zine, Ego, I quoted John Cassavetes when he said 'Ego is not a four-letter word'. Ego is, after all, just Latin for "I" and the 'I'dea of zines for some of us was to have total control of a collection of opinions, artwork etc. Of course it was egotistical; it was me and many others showing the world (ignoring the fact that only a very small part of it would get to see) how smart, or funny we were...oh...and what Good Taste we had - guilty!
When your taste is a minority one compared to the lumpen masses it's impossible, at some stage, not to feel the urge to declare it even louder, to blow your own trumpet whilst the philistines hammer at the gates. Siege mentality? For decades it felt like I was under siege from a silent army swarming around me, bombarding me with all that signified their lack of taste - be it in film, art, literature, music...and the media feed of the mundane.
Ego was borne partly out of that feeling and, of course, enthusiasm caused by the ripple of zines which did flow against the tsunami of mediocrity. Doing a zine felt like a big gesture, regardless of how it looked or even what it contained - it was your thing, totally yours. As small as production figures may have been it felt like you were part of a scene, at least.
'Build it and they will come' only works to a limited degree. Yes, you 'build' something and yes, a few people do arrive. Having overcome the disappointment that the like-minded souls you've attracted barely amount to a hill of beans in this world, you settle into the idea that at least some people share your taste or appreciate what you do.
The internet supposedly changed all that. 'Look, the world is yours to conquer!' Then you discover that the world isn't looking and it takes an incredible amount of dedication to social networking to gain a larger audience. Guess what: that's more than most creators can be bothered with. I should say, more than some of us can be bothered with, especially we who were not born with a smartphone in our hands.
Art-making is connected to taste, naturally. Whatever you make can't help but reflect your taste...in colour, subject matter, medium etc. Taste is also related to knowledge. I hesitate to say 'education'. Ignorance can be bliss, or just plain ignorance. How can anyone ignorant of certain artists, writers or musicians know what they're missing and how much better their lives might be once the commonplace is overshadowed by...'great art'? Yeah, it's a matter of taste. But is it? Our tastes are shaped only by what we get to know. Isn't it all context? We know a film is great, but we know with more certainty because we're aware of all the cinematic dross that's been made. The rubbish makes us appreciate brilliance even more.
Surprise, surprise, the social network proved to be a battle of egos. Everyone wants attention. We're all, to greater and lesser degrees, clamouring to be heard above the online din of millions offering opinions and, yes, artwork. 'But what about me?!' For all that mine is a very small voice, barely heard, I hate the idea of being an 'influencer', someone with thousands of 'followers'. The pressure to perform! Imagine millions hanging on your every word and, by default, all those others watching for when you say something 'wrong'. No chance of me being 'cancelled'. The very nature of what I do denies anyone the opportunity, or a reason to do so. That said, I have been...shunned, but then, I've learnt that even so-called 'friends' can only take so much of me being me - ha-ha.
Well, that's all for now, folks. Don't forget to Share, Like, Subscribe...(wink).
No comments:
Post a Comment